# Aamas Review Process

Use when explaining or planning around AAMAS peer review, covering OpenReview review...

- Repository: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills (1346 stars)
- Category: Engineering
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-09-27
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aamas-review-process -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aamas-review-process -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aamas-review-process -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill aamas-review-process -g -a gemini-cli -y`
Claude Code plugin marketplace: `/plugin marketplace add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`

## Description

Use when explaining or planning around AAMAS peer review, covering OpenReview review release, the double-blind rebuttal on preliminary reviews, area-chair discussion, the mixed game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewer pool, the public posting of reviews and decisions, and how acceptance criteria weigh the interaction contribution.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# AAMAS Review Process

Use this to reason about review-stage strategy. Reopen the current CFP, OpenReview group,
author and reviewer instructions, and the code of conduct before making process claims; AAMAS
review specifics move between editions.

## Process model

- AAMAS runs submission and review on OpenReview under the IFAAMAS namespace in recent cycles.
- Reviewers evaluate technical correctness, the significance of the interaction contribution,
  the reality and rigor of the multiagent evaluation, clarity, reproducibility, and fit with
  agents-and-multiagent-systems scope.
- A rebuttal lets authors respond to preliminary reviews before the final decision; area chairs
  then synthesize.
- Accepted papers and their reviews are published, so the review record is durable and public.
- The most useful rebuttal gives the area chair a clean rationale for acceptance, not a
  point-by-point defense of every comment.

## Who reviews here

- The pool mixes game theorists, multiagent-RL researchers, mechanism-design and social-choice
  specialists, and systems-minded reviewers; expect at least one to read the game definition and
  solution concept line by line.
- Because AAMAS is specialized, a paper is likely to meet a reviewer who works on exactly its
  subarea, so a vague equilibrium claim or an under-specified opponent set gets caught rather
  than skimmed.
- Borderline interaction papers usually fail on one of three edges: the result turns out to be
  single-agent in disguise, the solution concept is never pinned down, or the multiagent
  evaluation is thin (self-play only, no seeds, no held-out opponents).

## Scoring leverage table

The rest: https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills/blob/HEAD/AAMAS-Skills/skills/aamas-review-process/SKILL.md